What exactly happens when the United States is no longer a world power?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
Also militarily China actually ranks about 3rd in the world behind Russia and the USA. China's army is impressive (mostly due to its sheer side) but its air force and navy are really not all that impressive considering China's economic power, plus there is a geographic advantage that America has which China can never achieve itself no matter what.

Well, depends how you measure it. Without a navy, an army is more or less useless beyond your own borders, unless you are going to invade nations you have a land border with.

The UK has a much smaller army, but is able to deploy it anywhere in the world. In most real terms it therefore has a stronger military than China.

Ah and a very valid observation. Imperial Rome dominated its sphere of Influence (essentially Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa) with perhaps one of the greatest land armies of the ancient world. Great Britain quite literally ruled the waves and as the saying goes, he who controls the oceans controls the world.

You see the point is, its not the quality or the size of your military force that is the key factor here, it is how that force is applied. Also geography plays a big part too, one reason why the United States and Great Britain are and were respectively so successful in history has a good deal to do with geography and geographic advantages tend to be permanent.

And yes...China's army is of little consequence to any world power that hypothetically would have to face China far from its shores. Oh sure the Chinese Navy could manage to support an invasion of say Taiwan but once you get to Australia I seriously doubt it has the logistical ability necessary to maintain itself, you see more often than not its not the army that has the most advanced equipment but rather the one with the best logistical support that emerges victorious. This is a truth about warfare that I seriously hope my own country has not forgotten. While its good that we can afford to build high tech weapon systems its better to have a large number of good systems than a small number of great systems.

Anyway I seem to have wandered a bit...I do that when this kind of subject is brought up, as I was saying...good point.

Seekster:
you see more often than not its not the army that has the most advanced equipment but rather the one with the best logistical support that emerges victorious. This is a truth about warfare that I seriously hope my own country has not forgotten. While its good that we can afford to build high tech weapon systems its better to have a large number of good systems than a small number of great systems.

Well, the problem with building good system rather than great, is that what's good and great now won't be later on. In the lifetime of many systems, the great becomes good, and the good becomes worthless.

Also, nowdays most western nations won't tolerate much of the way of casualties, they need overwhelming superiority for that reason alone.

Personally, I'd predict that China increase it's force projection once the US declines, if for no other reason than I'd say that it is the US making more trouble than it's worth any time China looks like it's doing so is a big part of why they haven't already, though I'm not an expert.

No longer a world power? So long as one man in this countries believes in our ideals and our army stands strong that won't happen.

BlumiereBleck:
No longer a world power? So long as one man in this countries believes in our ideals and our army stands strong that won't happen.

A strong army (plus logistical support for deployments of it) being one of the things that makes you a world power, yes.

we'll probably become one of those borg U.N countries that does fairly well for itself but no one cares about, like Canada or any of the Nordic countries or the countries in the U.K that aren't england. you know just living life normally, under the radar.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
you see more often than not its not the army that has the most advanced equipment but rather the one with the best logistical support that emerges victorious. This is a truth about warfare that I seriously hope my own country has not forgotten. While its good that we can afford to build high tech weapon systems its better to have a large number of good systems than a small number of great systems.

Well, the problem with building good system rather than great, is that what's good and great now won't be later on. In the lifetime of many systems, the great becomes good, and the good becomes worthless.

Also, nowdays most western nations won't tolerate much of the way of casualties, they need overwhelming superiority for that reason alone.

Personally, I'd predict that China increase it's force projection once the US declines, if for no other reason than I'd say that it is the US making more trouble than it's worth any time China looks like it's doing so is a big part of why they haven't already, though I'm not an expert.

All very true, and for the most part quality does give more advantages than quantity but only when the quality of your systems is notably greater than that of your opponent. The First Persian Gulf War is a prime example, Saddam's military forces were numerous yes but they were equipped with largely outdated Soviet surplus and much of their forces were poorly trained conscripts. If anything we overestimated the effectiveness of the Iraqi army (and on top of that Saddam made almost all the wrong strategy choices). Oh yes the outcome of the First Persian Gulf War was inevitable but the overwhelming nature of that victory was due to a number of factors, one of which being an overwhelming superiority in quality, both in men (as in better trained) and material.

As for China...well they say they have no ambitions beyond their own shores...the funny thing about that is the United States used to be just like that. In fact few nations or men are openly ambitious when there is little opportunity for achieving those ambitions. If the opportunity presents itself I am sure China will be as ambitious as any other potential superpower. Of course I highly doubt the opportunity ever will present itself. Even though its likely China will eventually overtake the United States economically I do not their their advantage will be all that greater. The United States will always be able to afford a world beating military force for the foreseeable future. Furthermore there is also the matter of national pride. Americans take great pride in our military and are willing to spend far more on it than other western nations are. I think we would sooner give up social security than we would give up our first rate military force.

As for military power projection, the name of the game there is aircraft carriers (well also nuclear submarines but you can't win a war with a few cruise missiles). China currently operates a single aircraft carrier, the Varyag or the Shi Lang (as some reports say the Chinese have renamed it). The Chinese navy is just now beginning to learn the skills necessary to effectively operate an aircraft carrier (its really not as easy as you might think at first) and until they build one themselves they are in no position to even consider projecting military power far beyond their shores.

The United States currently has 11 Supercarriers (also the Gerald Ford is under construction but by the time it enters service in or around 2015 the USS Enterprise will have been decommissioned so the number will still be 11) plus 9 Amphibious Assault Ships which are essentially light carriers. Tack onto that a large fleet of surface ships including 22 Cruisers and over 60 destroyers, plus 18 nuclear ballistic missile submarines and around 50 or so attack submarines. Tack onto that a global supply infrastructure that is already in place and well in use...yes China is highly unlikely to even match that kind of power projection ability anytime soon.

BlumiereBleck:
No longer a world power? So long as one man in this countries believes in our ideals and our army stands strong that won't happen.

im sure people in the british empire and the roman empire thought the same thing.

what happenes? things get really curious then. with the USA's military capability what happens if it starts to split on economic/military bloc lines, 3 carrier groups supporting one group, 4 supporting another. the other option is an isolationist military dictatorship/police state like north korea on technological steroids

No longer a world power? Nothing much I presume.
China is the up and coming economic giant and they depend on exports and economic stability as much as us. So even if the EU fails to step up to fill the vacuum, I don't think there'll be chaos all of a sudden. It's not like other powers haven't shrinked in the past. Unless it's a catastrophic, quick collapse, I don't think it'll have too many repercussions.

Destroyed? Erm.
What could destroy the USA entirely? Are you talking about a nuclear war or something? Because that would obviously have extreme consequences for everybody.

What are you asking?

rutcommapat:
Speaking out of curiosity and slight fear, what exactly would happen to the common person when the United States is destroyed?

firstly why does the US need to be destroyed to no longer be a world power?

and i would say that depending on how fast the transition happens from the US to another country fast would probably be a big economic shock and a finacial crisis and if its slow enough it probably wont even be noticed. just one day the news instead of showing exchange rates to USD it will be to chinese yen or something.

Seekster:

All that is true, yes. China also can't call on powerful allies the way the US can, to bolster their forces or simply to allow their forces to be deployed from other nations.

nikki191:

BlumiereBleck:
No longer a world power? So long as one man in this countries believes in our ideals and our army stands strong that won't happen.

im sure people in the british empire and the roman empire thought the same thing.

Well, Britain still is a world power, just not the world power.

TheIronRuler:

.
If you look at Great Russia, plenty of westerners are still wary of the giant because they have this delusion that they aren't a 'real' democracy. The same will happen if and when China converts to Democracy whether it be by force, peacefully or the watchful eyes of extra-terrestrial aliens preparing for another century of the Humiliation of China. What? I read.

So you envision China being a mixed democracy like Russia? In all likelihoods that is the most likely situation, i don't ever see a violent revolution overthrowing the CCP because the state commands massive coercive powers. Still, Russia has the potential to transition to a full liberal democracy (where presidents and prime ministers don't take liberties with the constitution)- the Russian public are demanding it, same may happen with China one day.

I don't know what'll happen but I know that it WILL happen if Obama's re-elected!

Yeah I don't know how to make proper sarcasm pink, so that pink'll have to do.

I don't think anyone can truly know but it can go so many ways:

It could for any reason collapse like the former Soviet Union and transform into a new country (countries) with a semi-democratic system.

It could pull back and downsize until it has little external power like the former British Empire which was slowly given independence.

Or it can just go the way of Iran, collapse and have a viscous and authoritarian religious leader, become a pariah state and be generally backwards..

Currently the US government makes no move to comprehend the idea that their power is in decline, the same goes on in Britain, our politicians still believe we're a world power...
You know the phrase:
The bigger they are, the harder they fall..

The USA is fucking big on the world stage and you'll probably end up taking the world with you in a bid to remain dominant in the world..

SneeringCanuck:
I'm learning Mandarin in preperation for just such an occasion.

I've already learnt "please stop beating me I'll tell you everything I know"

Another good phrase to learn is "I swear to God it was my friend who insulted the Honorable Chairman, I can tell you where he lives!". I find it best to be prepared to sell my friends out in any language I may need to.

I doubt it will be anything dramatic. One generation lives in the US as a superpower. The next lives in the US as one of many power blocks. China really isn't a comic book villain, it has no reason to try and conquer the world or eventually go to war with the US, and Russia isn't the soviet union anymore.

I predict a future world made up of continent sized power blocks like the many federal union of semi-independent states that already exist (like the US and the EU) that are fairly friendly with each other. Perhaps they'll eventually agree on some limited co-operation like free trade and some international agencies. Hopefully they'll maybe disarm down to militaries only meant to keep internal peace when they see no reason to go to war with the others in the foreseeable future.

The decline of the US and the west in general doesn't have to mean the end of the world. And it certainly doesn't have to mean the end of the US and the west.

Captcha: let go. That's...disturbingly fitting.

There's a couple words missing from the title of this thread (and I assume it's a mistake). It should of course read:

What exactly happens now that the United States is no longer a world power?

Guessing few of the naysayers in the thread study international relations, business, politics, foreign affairs, history, finance, peace & conflict, or Asia...

Because this ship has long since sailed.

Cheers,
-Aes

Aesmodan:
There's a couple words missing from the title of this thread (and I assume it's a mistake). It should of course read:

What exactly happens now that the United States is no longer a world power?

Guessing few of the naysayers in the thread study international relations, business, politics, foreign affairs, history, finance, peace & conflict, or Asia...

Because this ship has long since sailed.

Cheers,
-Aes

Um...how about no. I am a history major and my area of study covers foreign policy and the United States may or may not still be a superpower depending on how you define that term but it absolutely is a world power.

Seekster:
Um...how about no. I am a history major and my area of study covers foreign policy and the United States may or may not still be a superpower depending on how you define that term but it absolutely is a world power.

Ah Seekster, the student I most enjoy seeing during my office hours...

I have some homework for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident

These are all the fallacies you have committed in this thread alone, with your 'professional interpretations' (seriously, if you really are a history major? More studying, less Escapist).

You really need to read this book. It is and was pivotal.

As usual, you've missed the point being discussed by all the other people in the thread, and attempted to steer a conversation with me toward a topic you want to argue about.

Not interested, sorry.
-Aes

Aesmodan:

Seekster:
Um...how about no. I am a history major and my area of study covers foreign policy and the United States may or may not still be a superpower depending on how you define that term but it absolutely is a world power.

Ah Seekster, the student I most enjoy seeing during my office hours...

I have some homework for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident

These are all the fallacies you have committed in this thread alone, with your 'professional interpretations' (seriously, if you really are a history major? More studying, less Escapist).

You really need to read this book. It is and was pivotal.

As usual, you've missed the point being discussed by all the other people in the thread, and attempted to steer a conversation with me toward a topic you want to argue about.

Not interested, sorry.
-Aes

Pft, I can post wikipedia links too.

Anyway I was responding to your post, I already finished responding to the OP.

Now then to your mind, would you consider nations like France, the UK, Russia, or India to be world powers? If so you must also consider the United States a world power.

You see the arrogance thing doesnt work when you spout nonsense about the United States not being a world power anymore (again its possible its not a Superpower anymore but you specifically said world power) and then dont even bother to defend it.

And for the record I graduated over a year ago.

Mostly likely scenario? The average American will have a bit less money.

Britain used to be a world power after all, THE world power in fact, and the English are by no means "ruined" or "destroyed".

Aesmodan:
There's a couple words missing from the title of this thread (and I assume it's a mistake). It should of course read:

What exactly happens now that the United States is no longer a world power?

The idea that the U.S. is "no longer a world power" is patently absurd.

Same thing as a bad DnD campaign conclusion

Aesmodan:
There's a couple words missing from the title of this thread (and I assume it's a mistake). It should of course read:

What exactly happens now that the United States is no longer a world power?

Guessing few of the naysayers in the thread study international relations, business, politics, foreign affairs, history, finance, peace & conflict, or Asia...

Because this ship has long since sailed.

Cheers,
-Aes

Largest economy, by far largest military. Presence all over the world. A nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world at will.

Are you talking about another United States of which I'm not yet aware? The United States is not just 'a' world power. It is the world power. And whatever you want to say about decline or the rise of another state, it hasn't happened yet.

Seanchaidh:
Largest economy, by far largest military. Presence all over the world. A nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world at will.

They last point is hyperbole, the second "only" true in terms of funding and logistical capability.

Otherwise, yeah...is this counting Atlantis and the secret empire of the lizard people? If not, I think the US sorta is a world power.

I think the US is and will be the last superpower. As in, the last sovereign nation state to hold that role. Civilization will evolve into a new paradigm, and national borders will matter less and less as the future brings more and more EU-like conglomerates.

If you look at all of history, the geographical and economic size of the greatest powers has had to continually increase. America, while huge as far as countries go, will seem small compared to the supernations that I suspect will become popular as the 21st century comes to a close. That's probably a long ways off, but I doubt another globe-spanning superpower nation, as we currently know it, will replace America as she declines in relative power. We're headed for a very strange reenactment of the multi-polar world that was 1871-1918. However, with the advent of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of the information age, huge conventional wars are likely a thing of the past. That doesn't count out other types of catastrophic events, though.

I looked at this list...
http://www.traveltowork.net/2010/04/top-10-super-power-countries-of-the-world/
I don't live in any of those countries, should I be scared and freaking out?!

harmonic:
I think the US is and will be the last superpower. As in, the last sovereign nation state to hold that role. Civilization will evolve into a new paradigm, and national borders will matter less and less as the future brings more and more EU-like conglomerates.

If you look at all of history, the geographical and economic size of the greatest powers has had to continually increase. America, while huge as far as countries go, will seem small compared to the supernations that I suspect will become popular as the 21st century comes to a close. That's probably a long ways off, but I doubt another globe-spanning superpower nation, as we currently know it, will replace America as she declines in relative power. We're headed for a very strange reenactment of the multi-polar world that was 1871-1918. However, with the advent of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of the information age, huge conventional wars are likely a thing of the past. That doesn't count out other types of catastrophic events, though.

interesting point there. that was a period of constant war as well. not world wars but wars in the far corners of the world and alot of the time by proxies and sadly a time of resource grabing as well. now that could become a serious issue.

RedFeather1975:
I looked at this list...
http://www.traveltowork.net/2010/04/top-10-super-power-countries-of-the-world/
I don't live in any of those countries, should I be scared and freaking out?!

Personally I would say that list is only accurate up to #5. Im not sure how Pakistan ranks on that list at all. Plus while Japan and Germany do indeed possess the 3rd and 4th largest economies on Earth respectively they do not wield much diplmoatic influence (for world powers that is) and of course their military reach is blunted...which is a shame really considering historically both nations have excelled at military activities and could be excellent peacekeepers *insert the Eddie Izzard joke here*.

harmonic:
I think the US is and will be the last superpower. As in, the last sovereign nation state to hold that role. Civilization will evolve into a new paradigm, and national borders will matter less and less as the future brings more and more EU-like conglomerates.

If you look at all of history, the geographical and economic size of the greatest powers has had to continually increase. America, while huge as far as countries go, will seem small compared to the supernations that I suspect will become popular as the 21st century comes to a close. That's probably a long ways off, but I doubt another globe-spanning superpower nation, as we currently know it, will replace America as she declines in relative power. We're headed for a very strange reenactment of the multi-polar world that was 1871-1918. However, with the advent of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of the information age, huge conventional wars are likely a thing of the past. That doesn't count out other types of catastrophic events, though.

Actually historically the norm has been that there are no Superpowers but only a collection of rival world powers. As such most of history or at least most of western history has been dominated by conflict between these rival powers. A Superpower is able to dominate is sphere of influence which leads to a Pax (ie Pax Romana, Pax Britania, Pax Americana) which put simply is a period of time wherein no major conflict can occur against the will of the Superpower unless it involves the Superpower (in other words the Superpower enforces peace or else).

I do agree with your overall premise though that after the United States ceases to be a Superpower and reverts to a World Power (which will happen because its exceptionally difficult to maintain Superpower status, particularly in the modern world where such things like territorial conquest are strong frowned upon).

My personal prediction:

The United States may well lose its superpower status but its military will remain the best on Earth and so to an extent the Pax Americana will be preserved but we may well see an increase in smaller scale conflicts (I mean outside of Africa which is pretty much always involved in some kind of conflict and that is only a slight exaggeration). China may well become more ambitious but I see China being forced to become a more open society by its own people. As a result of this and other factors I think the United States and China will be more rivals than actual enemies (in other words it wont be like the Cold War between the USA and USSR).

Brazil will continue to dominate South America though given that its heritage is notably different from other South American nations it may or may not take up the role as patron, meaning that it would effectively represent the interest of South American nations during meetings of World Powers. Brazil has a lot of resources going for it and its infrastructure is improving dramatically to take advantage of this. Personally I doubt it will ever be able to become a superpower in the foreseeable future. Militarily Brazil does have the makings of a world power with power projection capability. It has a single aircraft carrier, the Sao Paulo (formerly the French carrier Foch) as well as a respectable surface fleet and it is also building its own nuclear submarine which would be an amazing achievement. On a side note, I just found out that Brazil actually still operates a Monitor-type vessel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_monitor_Parna%C3%ADba_%28U17%29

Really though for Brazil which has to patrol the Amazon, having a vessel like this does make a good deal of sense and indeed most of Brazil's naval vessels are river and coastal patrol vessels. Anyway its air force could use some work though it doesnt have a great need for a strong air force yet, and Brazil's army is already at World Power levels and features the German Leopard I Main Battle Tank (which even as an American I will admit is probably the only tank in the world that MIGHT be better than the Abrams in terms of its military capability and in any case is a great tank).

I have no idea what the European Union will do, there are far too many factors involved and right now its hard to imagine that the European nations will be interested in taking up any of the diplomatic slack that the United States may or may not bleed off if we decide that we simply cant afford to be the World Policeman anymore and have to start reneging on a few of our foreign obligations (which may or may not happen but its a possibility). With all due respect I think Europe may be, at least in this generation, too self centered to look abroad (and yes I know that to some this may seem ironic coming from an American but hey, America cannot be accused of not taking an active role outside its borders, we are more confident/arrogant than self-centered and spoiled).

Russia may or may not emerge yet again as a leading world power (its almost certainly not going to become a superpower again as China would never tolerate a rival potential superpower right next door). Russia's economy still has a long recovery ahead of it after the USSR learned that Communism is never going to be able to go toe to toe with Capitalism in a brute-force economic contest (though I will admit that it may have had at least partly to do with that the Capitalist nation it was facing happened to be the USA). Predicting what Russia will do has always been notoriously difficult and I tend to subscribe to what Churchill said about Russia (though I cant help but respect the Russian people). Militarily Russia is second only to the United States and it has demonstrated a recent willingness to deploy its military in an offensive capacity if it thinks it can get away with it (Georgia). Diplomatically too Russia is even now demonstrating its willingness to stand up for its allies even against the International community (Syria), which is something that the United States has been known to do, particularly with Israel. So yes, give Russia enough time to rebuild its infrastructure and economy and I think there is a good chance it will be a leading world power in the near future...if it wants to be.

And last but certainly not least we have India. Not sure if you know this but India will soon overtake China as the most populace nation on Earth (and I think China is totally ok with that). India is kind of an odd case for a world power. Economically it is a fast growing power house that often gets overlooked because of China but socially India still deals with problems you would normally associate with a 3rd World Country. Diplomatically India has started to think of matters beyond its borders but it still has an unhealthy paranoia towards Pakistan, though very recent developments indicate that both nations are starting to get over that a bit (on a side note India is second only to the United States in the number of English speaking citizens, the United Kingdom is 5th behind the Philippines and Nigeria). Militarily India operates the carrier Viraat (formerly the HMS Hermes of Falkland War fame) and they are expected to induct the Russian-built Vikramaditya (Formerly the Admiral Gorshkov) into its navy sometime this year. Even more impressive, the Indians are actually building 2 carriers of their own (well building 1 with another planned but not yet approved), the Vikrant was launched in December of last year (or rather its hull was) and it is currently being fitted out and is expected to enter service sometime after 2015. India also has a large fleet of submarines (about 15) and is currently operating an Akula class Russian Nuclear Attack Submarine and they have plans to build their own class of nuclear submarines which again is an impressive feat for any nation in fact the first ship of the Arihant class of nuclear submarines is currently undergoing sea trials and should be fully operational by the end of this year. India also has a large and largely home built surface fleet that includes Destroyers as well as Frigates and Corvettes. India's air force is easily at world power standards and features the Su-30 and Mig-29 as its mainstays. India's army is the world's largest standing volunteer army (China's involves conscription) and its quality is pretty good too. It features mostly Russian tanks, especially over 2,000 upgraded T-72s as well as T-90s and an indigenous tank called that Arjun.

Seekster:

Personally I would say that list is only accurate up to #5. Im not sure how Pakistan ranks on that list at all. Plus while Japan and Germany do indeed possess the 3rd and 4th largest economies on Earth respectively they do not wield much diplmoatic influence (for world powers that is) and of course their military reach is blunted...which is a shame really considering historically both nations have excelled at military activities and could be excellent peacekeepers *insert the Eddie Izzard joke here*.

Germany played an integral part in the diplomacy regarding the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, I can tell you that. While most of the Western powers were content to maintain the status quo and were prepared to look the other way when the YNA tried to invade Slovenia and Croatia - USA going as far as for example declaring our self-determination to be "not legitimate" and they "were not prepared to recognize our independence" - something Clinton apologized for in 1995 when he visited Slovenia; most of the other world powers were on the same side.

Germany on the other hand (and Vatican, true) did some heavy diplomatic lobbying to convince the international community to recognize Slovenia (and Croatia) as independent countries. When war broke out on June 27th 1991, it lasted for 10 days after which it ended with the Brioni declaration, we had to freeze our independence activities for three months, but our independence was indeed recognized. Most of the international community then recognized us on 15th January 1992.

And we have Germany to thank for most of that, and likely for preventing an even bigger mess in the Balkans.

The thing with Germany is that it's content to mind its own business when there's no need to act on a world diplomatic scale. Seems they're confident enough about their muscles they don't have to constantly flex them. Germany has likely changed since 20 years ago, yes, but I wouldn't say they don't hold the diplomatic influence of a world power. They simply choose not to exercise it unless they deem it necessary.

yeah well you all might have huge economies and big influence and a strong military but to me australia is the most powerful nation.... at least if you count it man to man. name me 1 other country that has 22 million people yet accomplishes so much, has so much influence and takes part in peace keeping missions all over the world with great effect.

reonhato:
yeah well you all might have huge economies and big influence and a strong military but to me australia is the most powerful nation.... at least if you count it man to man. name me 1 other country that has 22 million people yet accomplishes so much, has so much influence and takes part in peace keeping missions all over the world with great effect.

Quite ironically, the second-place country in the rate of military personnel out on peacekeeping missions is Slovenia, or at least was until very recently. Yet back here at home, most people aren't really in favor of spending too much on the army. Not that it's a big one, but heh.

Just thought I'd throw some pointless trivia out there.

reonhato:
yeah well you all might have huge economies and big influence and a strong military but to me australia is the most powerful nation.... at least if you count it man to man. name me 1 other country that has 22 million people yet accomplishes so much, has so much influence and takes part in peace keeping missions all over the world with great effect.

Helps to have a whole continent to play with.

But yeah, Australia's peace keeping efforts tend to be forgotten, maybe because places like the Solomon Islands didn't turn out disastrously.

Mind you, NZ takes part in a lot of those, with even less population.

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

Personally I would say that list is only accurate up to #5. Im not sure how Pakistan ranks on that list at all. Plus while Japan and Germany do indeed possess the 3rd and 4th largest economies on Earth respectively they do not wield much diplmoatic influence (for world powers that is) and of course their military reach is blunted...which is a shame really considering historically both nations have excelled at military activities and could be excellent peacekeepers *insert the Eddie Izzard joke here*.

Germany played an integral part in the diplomacy regarding the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, I can tell you that. While most of the Western powers were content to maintain the status quo and were prepared to look the other way when the YNA tried to invade Slovenia and Croatia - USA going as far as for example declaring our self-determination to be "not legitimate" and they "were not prepared to recognize our independence" - something Clinton apologized for in 1995 when he visited Slovenia; most of the other world powers were on the same side.

Germany on the other hand (and Vatican, true) did some heavy diplomatic lobbying to convince the international community to recognize Slovenia (and Croatia) as independent countries. When war broke out on June 27th 1991, it lasted for 10 days after which it ended with the Brioni declaration, we had to freeze our independence activities for three months, but our independence was indeed recognized. Most of the international community then recognized us on 15th January 1992.

And we have Germany to thank for most of that, and likely for preventing an even bigger mess in the Balkans.

The thing with Germany is that it's content to mind its own business when there's no need to act on a world diplomatic scale. Seems they're confident enough about their muscles they don't have to constantly flex them. Germany has likely changed since 20 years ago, yes, but I wouldn't say they don't hold the diplomatic influence of a world power. They simply choose not to exercise it unless they deem it necessary.

True but keep in mind the Balkans are in Germany's own back yard. I mean Australia does a lot of dealing with other Oceania countries but it could hardly be accused of throwing its diplomatic weight around on a global stage (though I dont think it really wants to).

Seekster:
True but keep in mind the Balkans are in Germany's own back yard. I mean Australia does a lot of dealing with other Oceania countries but it could hardly be accused of throwing its diplomatic weight around on a global stage (though I dont think it really wants to).

Going off-topic a bit, but former Australian PM Kevin Rudd wanted Australia to be part of the UN security council (I don't know if he'd lost party leadership by that time, though). He also had an irritating habit of appealing for calm from both sides of any big newsworthy conflict to make himself look big.

On the other hand, under the PM before that, Australia sent the most troops of any non-NATO nation to Afghanistan, and the third most troops to Iraq...there were jokes about Howard inviting the US to Australia's invasion of Iraq because he stopped pretending Hussein had been given an ultimatum he could comply with before Bush did.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
True but keep in mind the Balkans are in Germany's own back yard. I mean Australia does a lot of dealing with other Oceania countries but it could hardly be accused of throwing its diplomatic weight around on a global stage (though I dont think it really wants to).

Going off-topic a bit, but former Australian PM Kevin Rudd wanted Australia to be part of the UN security council (I don't know if he'd lost party leadership by that time, though). He also had an irritating habit of appealing for calm from both sides of any big newsworthy conflict to make himself look big.

On the other hand, under the PM before that, Australia sent the most troops of any non-NATO nation to Afghanistan, and the third most troops to Iraq...there were jokes about Howard inviting the US to Australia's invasion of Iraq because he stopped pretending Hussein had been given an ultimatum he could comply with before Bush did.

And we are very appreciative of Australia for their help, I mean that sincerely. Still Australia is what we call a regional power though it is a unique case given its close relationship with the UK and by extension the USA...and while I am talking about the UK and its lively children:

image

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked